Buy or Rent?

[iDumb]

epitaph i wasn't talking to you or your case. You are just not that smart. You read a lot of nonsense but do very little. You come here open a post and then when someone gives you realistic posts, you want to argue here for no apparent reason, telling us how to differentiate rent vs buy scenario.

Who cares where you live or what amount of property you are looking for. My posts clearly mentioned what market I am talking about.

20% is not the minimum anywhere in USA - the lender dictates that - you can secure loan with even 0%. Educate yourself first or better understand what you read properly then comeback and talk.

Yes I could have written everything I wanted to in one sentence but I didn't. What's the problem with that?

12% is a good return but you could get similar returns with other investments with less risk and without tying up your money monthly.

Like what? another blanket statement. And less risks compared to what?

you are looking for a 100k condo but wasting so much energy over analyzing ... at the end of the day it's only 25 to 30k investment. Do more talk less. Peace!

[bujhee kom]

Situation looks grim...I think I would rather check into a Motel 6 tonight.
They have been leaving the light on for me

[epitaph]

Originally Posted by iDumb
epitaph i wasn't talking to you or your case. You are just not that smart. You read a lot of nonsense but do very little. You come here open a post and then when someone gives you realistic posts, you want to argue here for no apparent reason, telling us how to differentiate rent vs buy scenario.

Who cares where you live or what amount of property you are looking for. My posts clearly mentioned what market I am talking about.

20% is not the minimum anywhere in USA - the lender dictates that - you can secure loan with even 0%. Educate yourself first or better understand what you read properly then comeback and talk.

Yes I could have written everything I wanted to in one sentence but I didn't. What's the problem with that?



Like what? another blanket statement. And less risks compared to what?

you are looking for a 100k condo but wasting so much energy over analyzing ... at the end of the day it's only 25 to 30k investment. Do more talk less. Peace!

I wasn't arguing, and 800k isn't realistic for most people.

Here we go again.

[iDumb]

Originally Posted by epitaph
I wasn't arguing, and 800k isn't realistic for most people.

you sound like you were arguing without grasping the concept just like previously. This forum is open to many different members. My scenario is realistic for new york city market - thats where I live and that's what I know.

Most major cities around the world have high real estate price. If anything your 100k condo is not realistic for most people here - even in Dhaka decent condos cost way more. And majority of Bangladeshi abroad live in metro/big city area.


I would consider myself lucky that you are living in a low cost of living area where you can buy at that price level and even find readily available renters. No one here can help. It's a matter of plugging in the numbers and just going for it.

if you are not receptive to other posts, don't ask questions. You can just tell us this is what you are doing and we can give input that way if we want to..

Your way of receiving my posts are not good for you given how you are responding. If you gonna go through the insulting route, you shoould be aware, i am waay waay better than you are at that. Don't be a sore loser.

[BengaliPagol]

Originally Posted by adamnsu
It all depends on your financial situation and the premium between renting and taking a property on mortgage really. Also lets not forget one's personal circumstances and the property market of the area you are buying into

However IMO I would say buy rather than rent if you can afford to. Buying a house with a mortgage is like renting but with a fixed asset at the end for yours to keep.

the way you termed it, it is an asset yes. But it is where you live. You sell it, you got nowhere to live. So it isn't an asset in the more traditional sense of how an asset is termed.

[epitaph]

Originally Posted by iDumb
you sound like you were arguing without grasping the concept just like previously. This forum is open to many different members. My scenario is realistic for new york city market - thats where I live and that's what I know.

Most major cities around the world have high real estate price. If anything your 100k condo is not realistic for most people here - even in Dhaka decent condos cost way more. And majority of Bangladeshi abroad live in metro/big city area.


I would consider myself lucky that you are living in a low cost of living area where you can buy at that price level and even find readily available renters. No one here can help. It's a matter of plugging in the numbers and just going for it.

if you are not receptive to other posts, don't ask questions. You can just tell us this is what you are doing and we can give input that way if we want to..

Your way of receiving my posts are not good for you given how you are responding. If you gonna go through the insulting route, you shoould be aware, i am waay waay better than you are at that. Don't be a sore loser.

lmao

[adamnsu]

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
the way you termed it, it is an asset yes. But it is where you live. You sell it, you got nowhere to live. So it isn't an asset in the more traditional sense of how an asset is termed.

I dont understand what you are trying to say TBH. As far as I know an asset is something one owns and has a monetary value. If this isnt a traditional sense, could you please give me one so I can understand what you are really trying to get at?

It would be illogical if you sell a house without not making sure you dont have another house to live in?

[BengaliPagol]

Originally Posted by adamnsu
I dont understand what you are trying to say TBH. As far as I know an asset is something one owns and has a monetary value. If this isnt a traditional sense, could you please give me one so I can understand what you are really trying to get at?

It would be illogical if you sell a house without not making sure you dont have another house to live in?

I'm speaking from the pov that a person doesn't have a house yet but is looking to either rent or buy one. People on this thread are talking from the perspective that buying is better cos at least you have an "asset".

But that is a wrong way to look at it because you are essentially living in the so called "asset" and people think "oh yeah If things go bad at least my house is an asset and I can sell and make money". And in also other circumstances when the price at which the person bought the house was low and they're living in the house and they know that the value of their house is now a lot, people also think "yeah imma make heaps of profit from selling my house", neglecting the fact that if they sell their house i.e. asset they wont have a place to live and they may think that "i can just buy another cheaper house" but then all the houses prices around their area would have also increased as well.

Therefore thinking a house as an "asset" which you live in, is not exactly the same as other types of assets such as shares where your day to day life and livelihood is not affected by you buying and selling shares.

[adamnsu]

Sorry but I still cant see your point here.

"I'm speaking from the pov that a person doesn't have a house yet but is looking to either rent or buy one. People on this thread are talking from the perspective that buying is better cos at least you have an "asset". Once you own something it becomes an asset from an accounting point of view.

But that is a wrong way to look at it because you are essentially living in the so called "asset" and people think "oh yeah If things go bad at least my house is an asset and I can sell and make money". And in also other circumstances when the price at which the person bought the house was low and they're living in the house and they know that the value of their house is now a lot, people also think "yeah imma make heaps of profit from selling my house", neglecting the fact that if they sell their house i.e. asset they wont have a place to live and they may think that "i can just buy another cheaper house" but then all the houses prices around their area would have also increased as well.


Based on this I can tell you didnt properly read what I wrote about the advantage of buying a property than renting, but also highlighted the variables involved.

Therefore thinking a house as an "asset" which you live in, is not exactly the same as other types of assets such as shares where your day to day life and livelihood is not affected by you buying and selling shares.


There are different kinds of assets as far as I am aware the house and stocks and share are clearly not the same type. You are comparing oranges and apples based on this statement so cant see how your logic applies. Yes I agree both are different types of assets but thats not the point of the discussion in here.

[G-man]

An Asset is something that has "positive economic value" (general academic definition). A house/home has an intrinsic value to it right- you can house yourself/family- derive stream utility from it (strictly economic sense) and you can do indefinitely.

the question after that becomes purely monetary because owning V renting, you're deriving the same utility from the house (maybe security is the only drawback of renting?)

If you buy:

although the property itself is an asset, the loan you acquire is a LIABILITY. the loan is an Asset to the bank, liability to you!

if the mark to market price (the price it would sell for) of the property is less than total value of the loan- then your liabilities > Assets and that means you are in the red.

in terms of valuations, a fair value purchase means the price is not more than 3 or 4 times your take home yearly pay. Apart from the monetary box ticked, if the house ticks all other boxes- schools, work etc etc then it makes great compelling sense to buy. in bubble markets, these valuations can go amazingly high.

housing ownership is largely an illusion in some sense - Satyajit Das has some good commentary on this.

I would always favour renting because the maths just favoured renting.

People take a simplistic approach to buying property- its engrained. I buy a house for 1mil, sell it for 1.5 in 10 years. 50% gain in 10 years is about just over 5% compouned annually. 3% is inflation- 2 gain, factor in costs of buying/selling/interest etc and you are in the red. you sell the house and what buy a house for 1.5 mil? then you really haven't gained anything.

I can go on and on, but the risks of owning are gravely understated and the maths barely understood.

[mufi_02]

I don't think in terms of making a profit. I want to build equity and by the time I am 55-60, I would be done paying off the mortgage and then don't need to pay any rent/mortgage during retirement. Think about in that perspective. You don't want to reach your retirement age and still keep on paying rent indefinitely.

[Fazal]

Originally Posted by bujhee kom
Situation looks grim...I think I would rather check into a Motel 6 tonight.

Do they pillow or we need to bring our own pillow?

[iDumb]

Originally Posted by mufi_02
I don't think in terms of making a profit. I want to build equity and by the time I am 55-60, I would be done paying off the mortgage and then don't need to pay any rent/mortgage during retirement. Think about in that perspective. You don't want to reach your retirement age and still keep on paying rent indefinitely.

this! I see a trend. The dumbasses in this forum who think they know a lot but lack experience think renting is better. Owning properties are one of the hallmark of wealth creation.

All these calculations only work theory..the fact is most ppl aren't disciplined and lucky enough to invest the assumed savings from renting elsewhere every month and then yielding good return.

having a mortgage does two things:
1. Forces you to save/build equity (by paying down mortgage)
2. Hedge against inflation (with fixed monthly payment, as time goes by - everything around u including rent cost more while ur payment stays same) making your cost of living lower as time passes by.

I buy a house for 1mil, sell it for 1.5 in 10 years. 50% gain in 10 years

you are very unlikely to make a loss if you live in one hosue for 10 years. Usually the argument you put forth has validity if you need to sell or relocated in 3 or 4 years time...you haven't accounted for 10 years of rent money that you payed down the mortgage with. That's 1/3 of payment for a 30 year mortgage or 2/3 for a 15 years one.

Also read my earlier post on leverage. 1 million house price doesn't mean you have invested 1 million dollars. You probably invested 200K. So your rate of return on your "investment" is much much higher. In a low interest rate setting, there is no reason not to be a buyer really.

I do however realize my thinking maybe a bit biased due to the high demand real estate market that i live in. There are places where real estate prices will be stagnant or even drop or you will have hard time selling or renting.. but I wouldn't live in those places.. just not my style.

[G-man]

Yeah maths only works in theory.

[DinRaat.]

Originally Posted by G-man
Yeah maths only works in theory.

Debatable.

[Yankees]

Originally Posted by mufi_02
I don't think in terms of making a profit. I want to build equity and by the time I am 55-60, I would be done paying off the mortgage and then don't need to pay any rent/mortgage during retirement. Think about in that perspective. You don't want to reach your retirement age and still keep on paying rent indefinitely.

mortgage isn't the only cost. You have to consider property taxes, insurance, utilities, water, and the cost of upkeep, which as your house gets older could significantly cost you money and time.

By age 60, hopefully your kids are out the house, in which case I would rather downsize to a small apartment, pay rent, and enjoy what lttle time i have left on earth.

[iDumb]

Originally Posted by G-man
Yeah maths only works in theory.

Except you aren’t good at it .

[G-man]

Originally Posted by iDumb
Except you aren’t good at it .

yeah says the guy that couldn't calc 3% of 80k.

[G-man]

Originally Posted by DinRaat.
Debatable.

/sarc mate

[DinRaat.]

Originally Posted by G-man
/sarc mate

Apologies didn't catch it.

[bujhee kom]

Originally Posted by Fazal
Do they pillow or we need to bring our own pillow?

Accha uncle, what do you think of living in a mobile home, not Winnebago or those expansive kinds...I mean just trailer park trailers...if I bring my own trailer, but I don't own the land, would that be considered owing or renting or 50/50 or both?

Fazal mamu, what do you think of living in a commune, like in a hippie commune, let's say in and around Vagginia beach area. No rent, no own...just living and sharing?!?
Or even in a nudist community...no clothes, no house, no rent...forever summer, chasing butterflies, running through meadows full of Daffodils, occasionally grow mushroom and eat!

[BengaliPagol]

Originally Posted by G-man
yeah says the guy that couldn't calc 3% of 80k.

hahahaaha oh man keep em coming !!!!

[Tausif]

Thelagari or rickshaw van?

[iDumb]

Originally Posted by G-man
yeah says the guy that couldn't calc 3% of 80k.

dont be a dumbass and confuse my posts with your other tiny but equally idiotic friend here. Go through the posts again.

the guy who invests pennies (even with virtual coins) but talk millions in the forum...

u keep renting ur dump ok

[iDumb]

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
hahahaaha oh man keep em coming !!!!

so making up random statement is way to go huh?

G man... that G suppsed to stand for money but the guy is expert at losing it...and has a risk tolerance of a 90 year old retired rickshawpuller.